Message-ID: <576535019.20120108214812@eikelenboom.it>
Date:	Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:48:12 +0100
From:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	<rjw@...k.pl>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression: ONE CPU fails bootup at Re: [3.2.0-RC7] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000598  1.478005] IP: [<ffffffff8107a6c4>] queue_work_on+0x4/0x30


Friday, January 6, 2012, 9:41:15 PM, you wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:13 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 04.01.2012 13:25, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> > On 04.01.2012 09:17, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> >> On 04.01.2012 01:53, John Stultz wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:31 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:09:48 -0800 John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> >From the stack trace, we've kicked off a rtc_timer_do_work, probably
>> >>>>> from the rtc_initialize_alarm() schedule_work call added in Neil's
>> >>>>> patch.  From there, we call __rtc_set_alarm -> cmos_set_alarm ->
>> >>>>> cmos_rq_disable -> cmos_checkintr -> rtc_update_irq -> schedule_work.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I was off for the evening a while after sending this out. And I just
>> >> started, so a few thing I will be doing later but have not yet had time.
>> >>
>> >> Over night I had still be thinking on this and maybe one important fact I had
>> >> been ignoring. This really has only been observed on paravirt guests on Xen as
>> >> far as I know. And one thing that I should have pointed out is that
>> >>
>> >> [    0.792634] rtc_cmos rtc_cmos: rtc core: registered rtc_cmos as rtc0
>> >> [    0.792725] rtc_cmos: probe of rtc_cmos failed with error -38
>> >>
>> >> So first the registration is done and the first line is the last thing printed
>> >> in the registration function. Then, and that line always comes after, the probe,
>> >> which looks like being done asynchronously, detects that the rtc is not
>> >> implemented. I would assume that this causes the rtc to be unregistered again
>> >> and that is probably the point where, under the right circumstances, the worker
>> >> triggered by the initialize alarm is trying to set another alarm. Probably while
>> >> some of the elements of the structure started to be torn down. I need to check
>> >> on that code path, yet. So right now its more a guess.
>> >>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So, what it looks to me is that in cmos_checkintr, we grab the cmos->rtc
>> >>>>> and pass that along. Unfortunately, since the cmos->rtc value isn't set
>> >>>>> until after rtc_device_register() returns its null at that point. So
>> >>>>> your patch isn't really fixing the issue, but just reducing the race
>> >>>>> window for the second cpu to schedule the work.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sigh. I'd guess dropping the schedule_work call from
>> >>>>> rtc_initialize_alarm() is the right approach (see below). When reviewing
>> >>>>> Neil's patch it seemed like a good idea there, but it seems off to me
>> >>>>> now.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Neil, any thoughts on the following? Can you expand on the condition you
>> >>>>> were worried about in around that call?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you set an alarm in the future, then shutdown and boot again after that
>> >>>> time, then you will end up with a timer_queue node which is in the past.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for explaining this again.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hrm. It seems the easy answer is to simply not add alarms that are in
>> >>> the past.  Further, I'm a bit perplexed, as if they are in the past, the
>> >>> enabled flag shouldn't be set.   __rtc_read_alarm() does check the
>> >>> current time, so maybe we can make sure we don't return old values? I
>> >>> guess I assumed __rtc_read_alarm() avoided returning stale values, but
>> >>> apparently not.
>> >>>
>> >>>> When this happens the queue gets stuck.  That entry-in-the-past won't get
>> >>>> removed until and interrupt happens and an interrupt won't happen because the
>> >>>> RTC only triggers an interrupt when the alarm is "now".
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So you'll find that e.g. "hwclock" will always tell you that 'select' timed
>> >>>> out.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So we force the interrupt work to happen at the start just in case.
>> >>>
>> >>> Unfortunately its too early. 
>> >>>
>> >>>> Did you see my proposed patch which converted those calls to do the work
>> >>>> in-process rather than passing it to a worker-thread?  I think that is a
>> >>>> clean fix.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think I saw it today. Was it from before the holidays?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I fear I caused a bit of confusion there. Neil responded to my initial mail
>> >> which was done as a reply to the mail announcing this patch for stable (which
>> >> just was the first thread I could get hold of).
>> >> I will try Neil's patch as well. And in parallel try to see whether the theory I
>> >> had this night makes sense. If it does, then it is only indirectly that the work
>> >> is scheduled too early. In that case just the teardown needs to make sure that
>> >> no work is being run while removal. Well, maybe the question is whether there
>> >> should be a delay in running the irq work until the device really, really is
>> >> completely set up... But that sounds a bit more complicated.
>> > 
>> > By now I tried Neil's proposed patch and unfortunately that makes things rather
>> > worse. I also played around with the idea of the unregistration race. Maybe
>> > there also is one (that cancel_work_sync should be called before unregistering
>> > the device) but definitely it is not what happens at least in the one CPU case.
>> > I added some more printk's and the crash happens before even the rtc core class
>> > has been fully registered. And no unregister is call has been made either.
>> > 
>> > Which may point to execution of the irq worker (including a schedule_work)
>> > before the rtc-cmos parts are finished... Would explain why moving the
>> > initialize call further down does at least narrow the window for it to happen...
>> > The only thing I do not understand then is why that seems only to happen on Xen
>> > guests...
>> > 
>> 
>> Darn, guess I understand now... So cmos-rtc will call rtc_device_register from
>> within do_cmos_probe and set cmos_rtc.rtc with the pointer that
>> rtc_device_register returns.
>> But when having rtc_initialize_alarm being called earlier in
>> rtc_device_register, and that queues the work, there is a chance it will fire
>> even before that function returns.
>> And then cmos_checkintr will dereference the null pointer still stored in
>> cmos_rtc.rtc for calling rtc_update_irq...

> Hey Stefan, Konrad, Sander, Neil,
>         Thanks again for the bug reporting and sorry for the earlier trouble.
> So after the problematic patch was reverted for 3.2, I worked with Neil
> to try to address the issue in a better way. It looks like its working
> for Neil, so I was wondering if any of you could look over and maybe
> give the following tree a whirl:
>         git://git.linaro.org/people/jstultz/linux.git dev/rtc-fixups

> The shortlog is here:
> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/jstultz/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/dev/rtc-fixups

> If this avoids the issue for you, and no one sees any other problems,
> I'll queue these for 3.3

> thanks
> -john

Boots both with single as with multiple CPU Xen guests

Tested-by: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>

thanks,

--
Sander

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists